I doubt this or you would be better at this. Maybe you do maritime? Kidding.
Quote:
The Supreme Court has addressed it. There is a rule. All other courts in the country must follow that rule in making their decision.
Sort of yet almost always. I would wager an attorney would know this. Lower courts can and do interpret SCOTUS rulings. Courts can grant a cert and the reviews can go all the way to the Supreme Court again, and in such a case, if SCOTUS agrees with the ruling a new precedent will be set. The level of this measurement is "cert. worthiness."
This is neither here nor there. The point is that laws are subject to interpretation. Your lofty claims of violations are just that: Claims. Let the lawyers hammer it out. Single entity arguments are not dead -- defeated, maybe, but the NHL will hire good lawyers. All it takes is a damn good one to do what the NFL and NBA failed at (sort of- no legal ruling for the NBA).
Last edited by DownieFaceSoftener: 12-17-2012 at 08:37 PM.
Here is an article about how this could backfire on the players. Getting a little love on the main board.
Abstract: Voting as a union to dissolve as a union (and even seeking that allowance from Fehr) is an obvious union negotiating tactic and judges aren't morons.
" But when the two sides are negotiating as units -- league vs. union -- there is an exception to the antitrust laws under labour law, one in which the players are barred from bringing antitrust suits. This exception was created in order to allow collective bargaining to occur, because without it, leagues would have to fear that any attempt to negotiate as one entity might be construed as a conspiracy in restraint of trade."
“I’ve been optimistic the whole time,” he said. “I mean, I think the point we are at now, where we’ve agreed on the dollars, I don’t really see how we can miss the whole season.”
so what do we figure.. about 1 week till the "drop dead" date now ???
GRRRR !!!!
the fact theres ZERO new news on talks on the NHL site tells me the whole story.. both sides have already secretly decided this season is done...
hey NHL thx for the memories, hahahaha grrrr...
im guessing right around Christmas they will cancel the season. of course if the PA de-certifies then the season is done with anyway.
this whole thing is just disgusting. maybe the NHL will be able to get a tv deal on UPN after this is over.
So what exactly have they agreed on in regards to dollars? Or is he just terribly misinformed?
He's partially right, but still misinformed.
The NHL offered the PA a deal with :
10 year cba with 8 year out clause
50/50 split
300m make whole
5 year contract max (I think they also changed it to 7 if the team owned your rights)
The players offered :
8 year cba with 6 year out clause
50/50 split
300m make whole
8 year contract max
So, while it looks like they money is right, the NHL said the 300m make whole was tied to the PA agreeing to the 10 year cba and the 5 (or 7) year contract max.
im guessing right around Christmas they will cancel the season. of course if the PA de-certifies then the season is done with anyway.
this whole thing is just disgusting. maybe the NHL will be able to get a tv deal on UPN after this is over.
If the players don't decertify, I'd say the cancellation date is around january 16th to the 30th or so.
However, if the players do decertify at all, the season is done. The decertifying process takes a minimum of 45 days. So if they were to begin the steps to decertify, the decertification process would end around february 2nd or so.
I doubt this or you would be better at this. Maybe you do maritime? Kidding.
Well it is kind of tough when the person you are talking with doesn't really understand how it works and is not familiar with the Sherman Act's applicability to sports leagues.
Quote:
Sort of yet almost always. I would wager an attorney would know this. Lower courts can and do interpret SCOTUS rulings. Courts can grant a cert and the reviews can go all the way to the Supreme Court again, and in such a case, if SCOTUS agrees with the ruling a new precedent will be set. The level of this measurement is "cert. worthiness."
Once again, this shows your lack of understanding. Yes, the lower courts interpret decisions of the Supreme Court. However, when the Supreme Court sets forth a rule (like the one that it did in the American Needle case), the lower courts have to follow that rule. After quoting the rule from the SCOTUS itself, i then stated that the court's reasoning would be similar in an NHL context. Yes a court could in theory rule the other way, but that would be reversed immediately on appeal because the test is very clear. Go read my post on the previous page with what the rule is, followed by the analysis. If you understand how the law works you would know that whichever court is reviewing the case would look at the American Needle for what the rule is, then guidance on the analysis. Since the NFL and the NHL operate essentially the same way (as 30 individual entities competing against each other), it would not rule that the NHL is a single entity.
Quote:
This is neither here nor there. The point is that laws are subject to interpretation. Your lofty claims of violations are just that: Claims. Let the lawyers hammer it out. Single entity arguments are not dead -- defeated, maybe, but the NHL will hire good lawyers. All it takes is a damn good one to do what the NFL and NBA failed at (sort of- no legal ruling for the NBA).
They would have to be lawyers operating in fantasy land to be able to show that a league, like all other leagues before it, operating the same way the other leagues before it have operated, is somehow a single entity based on no other court precedent allowing leagues that operate this way to become single entities. Yes, in theory that could work. But in practice? No. One league actually has won with a single entity theory. I will find the case later, but it was a soccer league where each team owned a part of the league itself as a corporation (or something along those lines). In that case, the league was a single entity. None of the sports leagues could pull this off.
Go read the actual American Needle case and the actual Copperwald case explaining how the single entity theory (and other anti-trust related issues) works. After reading these, please explain to me how "a damn good lawyer" will be able to get around this clearly established precedent. If you have not read these cases, your arguments based on the rulings in these cases don't hold much water. If your argument is simply "anything can happen," then ok, you are right. Nothing is set is stone and who knows, maybe one day women will no longer be able to vote. Hey, all it takes is a damn good lawyer!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener
Here is an article about how this could backfire on the players. Getting a little love on the main board.
Abstract: Voting as a union to dissolve as a union (and even seeking that allowance from Fehr) is an obvious union negotiating tactic and judges aren't morons.
" But when the two sides are negotiating as units -- league vs. union -- there is an exception to the antitrust laws under labour law, one in which the players are barred from bringing antitrust suits. This exception was created in order to allow collective bargaining to occur, because without it, leagues would have to fear that any attempt to negotiate as one entity might be construed as a conspiracy in restraint of trade."
Dude that is literally what I have been saying. I have consistently mentioned the labor exemption and the fact that the presence of labor unions negates certain anti-trust laws and that decertification would open the league up to anti-trust violations.
Last edited by DrinkFightFlyers: 12-18-2012 at 06:54 AM.
The NHL offered the PA a deal with :
10 year cba with 8 year out clause
50/50 split
300m make whole
5 year contract max (I think they also changed it to 7 if the team owned your rights)
The players offered :
8 year cba with 6 year out clause
50/50 split
300m make whole
8 year contract max
So, while it looks like they money is right, the NHL said the 300m make whole was tied to the PA agreeing to the 10 year cba and the 5 (or 7) year contract max.
This is correct.
If both sides could hammer out the years on the CBA and dollar amount tied to the years on the make whole -- that would be huge.
I actually agree with Fehr on the CBA length. There are consent issues and economic issues with it being so long. We don't know how the league will be doing in ten years and players that are coming into the league a year from now will have 8-9 years (if they last that long) being under a CBA they had no say in.
What do you say, Krishna? I'm tuned into this, but you're waaay tuned in.
Does:
8/9 year cba with 6 year out clause
50/50 split
250m make whole
6 year contract max (8 if resigning with same team)
I don't care how the league spins it, the sides are NOT far apart. Split the differences down the middle and move on. I fail to see how either side stands to be crippled by going down the middle of those two last proposals.
If both sides could hammer out the years on the CBA and dollar amount tied to the years on the make whole -- that would be huge.
I actually agree with Fehr on the CBA length. There are consent issues and economic issues with it being so long. We don't know how the league will be doing in ten years and players that are coming into the league a year from now will have 8-9 years (if they last that long) being under a CBA they had no say in.
What do you say, Krishna? I'm tuned into this, but you're waaay tuned in.
Does:
8/9 year cba with 6 year out clause
50/50 split
250m make whole
6 year contract max (8 if resigning with same team)
Get it close?
I'd do
10 year cba
50/50 split
300m make whole
6-7 year contract max with 25% variance
4 year ELC with a larger amount that players can make. Previous amount was 925k. Move it to maybe 1.1m or 1.25m
250m in revenue sharing with stricter rules requiring the teams that collect money from the system to actually spend money on players. None of that **** that Wang did with the islanders
For supplemental discipline, I'd do the 3 person committee that one of the sides suggested. One person picked by each side and a person both sides agree to be the 3rd person
Teams who collect from RS should meet with marketing people from the NHL on ways to try and attract more fans
Certain percentage of the league's revenue to go into concussion research
Fix the draft lottery. No team should be allowed to pick in the top 2 picks more than 2 years in a row. And you can't pick first overall in consecutive years
If the players don't decertify, I'd say the cancellation date is around january 16th to the 30th or so.
However, if the players do decertify at all, the season is done. The decertifying process takes a minimum of 45 days. So if they were to begin the steps to decertify, the decertification process would end around february 2nd or so.
mid to late january seems pretty late to me unless the NHL wants a 30-35 game season.
I know the NHL loses asstons of sponsorship money in this scenario, but I'd be fine with a 28 game season if it comes to that. I don't think it does anything to hurt the credibility of the season, personally. I saw some stats that show by the end of 2 months, the playoff contenders are essentially set for the season anyways. Plus, each game matters a hell of a lot more and we'd basically begin the season with the post-deadline playoff push. Beats the hell out of no season.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
I know the NHL loses asstons of sponsorship money in this scenario, but I'd be fine with a 28 game season if it comes to that. I don't think it does anything to hurt the credibility of the season, personally. I saw some stats that show by the end of 2 months, the playoff contenders are essentially set for the season anyways. Plus, each game matters a hell of a lot more and we'd basically begin the season with the post-deadline playoff push. Beats the hell out of no season.
Yeah, I wouldn't do that. A team that goes to 7 games all 4 rounds could potentially play 2x as many games as a team that misses the playoffs. That's too few games
Bettman said they played 48 games in 94 and that's probably the fewest they would play while keeping credibility in the season
Yeah, I wouldn't do that. A team that goes to 7 games all 4 rounds could potentially play 2x as many games as a team that misses the playoffs. That's too few games
Bettman said they played 48 games in 94 and that's probably the fewest they would play while keeping credibility in the season
I'd have no problem with it. The teams shouldn't have been crappy enough to miss the playoffs, then.
Under that logic, the Kings aren't a good team since they would have missed the playoffs.
I think the devils would have missed it as well.
So now the 2 teams in the finals aren't good enough?
If they weren't good enough to make it in the given circumstances, no. Other teams would have managed to fight their way in in a tight race, each with the same circumstances. It's just a sprint instead of a marathon.
Fewer than 40 games ..not worth it IMO. Less than 30 would be a complete joke..that's like two preseasons although preseasons are much too long anyway...
I mean I miss hockey but there has to be some integrity to the season...
Would love to see the Vegas odds if they do salvage a season...
Ok well myself, being a licensed attorney, understands how all of those things work. For instance, no other panel needs to (or will) address the issue of the test for asserting the single entity theory as a defense. The Supreme Court has addressed it. There is a rule. All other courts in the country must follow that rule in making their decision.
Being a licensed attorney, you should know that Supreme Court cases can be overruled.
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) was overruled by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009).
The law is not black and white, it's gray. As an attorney, you use way too many absolutes in your legal opinions when the reality is, that even an extremely seasoned attorney who know a certain law inside and out will tell you that anything can happen.
If they weren't good enough to make it in the given circumstances, no. Other teams would have managed to fight their way in in a tight race, each with the same circumstances. It's just a sprint instead of a marathon.
Unfortunately we have a goalie that doesn't seem to be a sprinter....heck I'm not sure he is a marathoner either.
4 year ELC with a larger amount that players can make. Previous amount was 925k. Move it to maybe 1.1m or 1.25m
250m in revenue sharing with stricter rules requiring the teams that collect money from the system to actually spend money on players. None of that **** that Wang did with the islanders
For supplemental discipline, I'd do the 3 person committee that one of the sides suggested. One person picked by each side and a person both sides agree to be the 3rd person
Teams who collect from RS should meet with marketing people from the NHL on ways to try and attract more fans
Certain percentage of the league's revenue to go into concussion research
Fix the draft lottery. No team should be allowed to pick in the top 2 picks more than 2 years in a row. And you can't pick first overall in consecutive years
Fun idea, I'd do:
50/50
250M Make Whole
7 Year MAX w/ the 25% variance.
9 Year CBA w/ 7 year opt out.
Since I'm too lazy to do all of the counting for a 28 game season from last year, I'll use points per game at about the 30-33 game mark that I have saved
